JUDGMENT K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. - The appellant Kanwarjeet Singh is convicted under section 302, I.P.C. and is sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, Alongwith him three other persons also were tried but they were acquitted. Kanwarjeet Singh, the appellant preferred an appeal. The State also preferred an appeal against the acquittal of the other three persons. The High Court dismissed both the appeals. Hence the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case is as follows: Four original accused, deceased Jaswant Singh and the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 9 to 12 belong to Ludhiana. There was enmity between P.W. 12 and Joginder Singh, one of the accused. The appellant and other two accused were the associates of Joginder Singh. On 20th August, 1978 at about 10.15 p.m. P.W. 9, the deceased and P.W. 11 were coming from the side of Chowk Khud Mohalla taking their usual evening stroll. When they reached near the wholesale go down of Mohan Meakins they saw the four accused and they started beating P.Ws. 11 and 12. The appellant was armed with a knife. P.W. 10 whose shop is nearby alongwith two others were trying to separate the two fighting parties. Meanwhile P.W. 9 also come there and started altercating. Joginder Singh the accused raised a lalkara saying that the deceased has come to the help of P.W. 12 and that he should not be allowed to go alive. On that the appellant dealt a blow with his knife on the left side of the chest of the deceased and the other accused Jagjodh Singh gave a blow with his knife into his abdomen. On receipt of there two injuries the deceased fell down. When P.W. 9 and his companions stepped forward to pick up the fallen deceased they were attacked by the other acquitted accused. When P.W. 9 and others raised a loud alarm the accused ran away. The deceased was placed on apt and when being taken to the hospital he died on the way. P.W. 9 went to the police Station and gave a report. A.S.I. registered the crime, issued the F.I.R., held the inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. P.W. 2, the Doctor conducted the postmortem and found one incised injury on the chest and the other incised injury on the abdomen cavity. P.W. 9 went to the police Station and gave a report. A.S.I. registered the crime, issued the F.I.R., held the inquest and sent the dead body for post-mortem. P.W. 2, the Doctor conducted the postmortem and found one incised injury on the chest and the other incised injury on the abdomen cavity. The injury to the chest pierced the lungs and the other injury pierced abdomen wall. The Doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries. Meanwhile P.W. 1 another Doctor examined the appellant and found two incised wounds, one abrasion and a defused swelling. He also examined P.Ws. 10 and 11 and found some simple lacerated injuries on them. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was laid. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.Ws. 9 to 12. All these witnesses have unanimously stated that the appellant gave one knife blow. The plea of the accused has been one of denial. The appellant, however, in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. stated that when he and another accused were going to the house from the shop they were way laid by P.Ws. 9 to 12 and they inflicted injuries on both of them with knives. He, however, added that the deceased who intervened received injuries at the hands of P.W. 11 Kuldip Singh and they have been falsely implicated at the hands of the henchmen of the deceased and the P.Ws. The Trial Court observed that there was long delay in giving the F.I.R. but, however, convicted the appellant as there was a consistent version by the eye-witnesses that he stabbed the deceased. The High Court taking into consideration the fact that the accused also had injuries and that statement of the appellant also disclosed that there was a fight, observed that there was an altercation between the four accused persons on one side and P.Ws. 9,11 and 12 on the other. The High Court, however, held that the evidence of P.Ws. 9 and 10 is without any blemish. The evidence of all these eye-witnesses establishes that the appellant caused one of the fatal injuries to the deceased. 3. 9,11 and 12 on the other. The High Court, however, held that the evidence of P.Ws. 9 and 10 is without any blemish. The evidence of all these eye-witnesses establishes that the appellant caused one of the fatal injuries to the deceased. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below have rejected the evidence of these eye-witnesses in respect of three of the accused and, therefore, the same should have been rejected with regards the appellant also. The further submission is that the prosecution has not offered any explanation for the serious injuries found on the appellant and another accused. It is also his submission that the appellant has given his own version as to how he received injuries and how the deceased received injuries and that the same should have been accepted. 4. The Doctor who examined the appellant found two incised injuries on the scalp and the forehead and a defused swelling in the right hand and X-ray was also advised. The Trial Court also noticed that the whole of the truth has not been stated by the prosecution witnesses. No doubt at a later stage during the trial P.W. 11 came forward with a theory that he was carrying a small kirpan with which he caused the injuries to some of the accused persons. This explanation was not found to be satisfactory by the Courts below. 5. The mere fact that the other three accused are acquitted, is not a ground, in our view, to reject the same. So far as the part played by the appellant is concerned right from the stage of F.I.R., it has been stated that the appellant inflicted one blow with the knife on the deceased which alongwith another injury caused by another accused proved fatal. To that extent having gone through the evidence of the eye-witnesses carefully, we see no grounds to reject this version implicating the present appellant. 6. However, one important question that remains for consideration is whether the appellant had a right of self-defence. Both the Courts held that there was an altercation. The presence of incised injuries on the appellant that too on the head, would show that one of the members of the prosecution party had a knife and that those incised injuries have been inflicted on the head of the appellant. Both the Courts held that there was an altercation. The presence of incised injuries on the appellant that too on the head, would show that one of the members of the prosecution party had a knife and that those incised injuries have been inflicted on the head of the appellant. There is no proper explanation from the side of the prosecution. In such an event a doubt arises whether the appellant acted in exercise of his right of self-defence and that benefit has to go to him. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel that the appellant might have acted in exercise of his right of self-defence pas some force. But having regard to the seriousness of the injuries and the weapons used we are of the view that he has exceeded his right of self-defence and, therefore, Exception II to section 300, I.P.C. is attracted. For these reasons we set aside the conviction of the appellant under section 302, and the sentence of imprisonment for life. Instead we convict him under section 304, Part-I, I.P.C. and sentence him to seven years rigorous imprisonment. With this modification of sentence the appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of with modification. For Citation : 1992 Crl. L.J. 3781